MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157472158 · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4770

Verification problems in diagnostic accuracy studies: consequences and solutions

2011· article· en· W2157472158 on OpenAlexaff
Joris A. H. de Groot, Peter Bossuyt, Johannes B. Reitsma, Anne WS Rutjes, Nandini Dendukuri, K.J.M. Janssen, Karel G.M. Moons

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicDiagnostic accuracyDiagnostic odds ratioGold standard (test)StatisticsTest (biology)Outcome (game theory)Diagnostic testSensitivity (control systems)Nominal levelComputer scienceMedicineMathematicsConfidence intervalRadiologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The above examples show that partial disease verification, and thus missing disease outcome status in some of the patients, is

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.490
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.771
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4900.771
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.043
Scholarly communication0.0120.024
Open science0.0100.016
Research integrity0.0210.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.902
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations100
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207